Iranian EFL Teachers' Perception of Formulaic-Oriented Witten Corrective Feedback Practices

محورهای موضوعی : Research Paper

Zahra Hardani Naeeme Zade ¹ (Department of English Language and Literature, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran)
Javad Gholami ² (Department of English Language and Literature, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran)
Mehdi Sarkhosh ³ (Department of English Language and Literature, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran)

تاریخ دریافت : 1401/12/22 تاریخ پذیرش : 1402/10/09 تاریخ انتشار : 1403/01/13

کلید واژه: Perception, teachers, EFL classes, Formulaic Witten Corrective Feedback,

چکیده مقاله :

Although there is an increasing amount of research examining the efficacy of Witten Corrective Feedback (WCF) in enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL learners, only a few studies have explored the perspectives of EFL teachers regarding Formulaic-oriented Witten Corrective Feedback (FWCF) in EFL settings. Using a mixed-method approach, this interpretive exploratory study sought to understand the attitudes of Iranian EFL teachers toward FWCF. The analyses were based on quantitative data from a 13-item anonymous bespoke online survey, qualitative data from semi-structured interviews, and an open-ended question at the end of the survey. EFL teachers (n =137) responded to the online survey, and 7 participants participated in semi-structured interviews. The findings indicated that female teachers' favorable opinions about the effectiveness of WCF for improving EFL learners' writing performance resulted from their belief that the learners' capacity to use more formal and courteous language in their writing assignments was positively impacted by using these formulaic sequences. Moreover, the findings demonstrated that EFL teachers preferred direct WCF methods over indirect tactics. The most essential component that affected teachers' practices in the classroom was training designed to change their perspective of the valuelessness of WCF. The teachers' lack of satisfactory understanding of formulaic sequences stemmed from their lack of information. In addition, teachers' hesitancy to use them in the lower proficiency levels emanated from their misconceptions of their uselessness in the language learners' writing tasks.

چکیده انگلیسی:

اگرچه تحقیقات فزاینده ای در مورد بررسی کارایی بازخورد اصلاحی Witten (WCF) در افزایش دقت دستوری زبان آموزان زبان انگلیسی وجود دارد، تنها چند مطالعه دیدگاه معلمان زبان انگلیسی را در مورد بازخورد اصلاحی Witten Formulaic-oriented (FWCF) در EFL بررسی کرده اند. تنظیمات. این مطالعه اکتشافی تفسیری با استفاده از رویکرد ترکیبی به دنبال درک نگرش معلمان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی نسبت به FWCF بود. تجزیه و تحلیل‌ها بر اساس داده‌های کمی از یک نظرسنجی آنلاین سفارشی ناشناس 13 موردی، داده‌های کیفی از مصاحبه‌های نیمه ساختاریافته و یک سؤال باز در پایان نظرسنجی بود. معلمان زبان انگلیسی (137=n) به نظرسنجی آنلاین پاسخ دادند و 7 شرکت کننده در مصاحبه های نیمه ساختاریافته شرکت کردند. یافته‌ها نشان داد که نظرات مساعد معلمان زن در مورد اثربخشی WCF برای بهبود عملکرد نوشتاری زبان‌آموزان انگلیسی ناشی از این باور است که ظرفیت زبان‌آموزان برای استفاده از زبان رسمی‌تر و مودبانه‌تر در تکالیف نوشتاری‌شان به‌طور مثبت با استفاده از این توالی‌های فرمولی تأثیر می‌پذیرد. علاوه بر این، یافته‌ها نشان داد که معلمان زبان انگلیسی روش‌های مستقیم WCF را بر تاکتیک‌های غیرمستقیم ترجیح می‌دهند. اساسی ترین مؤلفه ای که بر عملکرد معلمان در کلاس درس تأثیر گذاشت، آموزش طراحی شده برای تغییر دیدگاه آنها از بی ارزش بودن WCF بود. عدم درک رضایت بخش معلمان از توالی فرمولی ناشی از کمبود اطلاعات آنها بود. به‌علاوه، تردید معلمان برای استفاده از آنها در سطوح مهارت پایین‌تر ناشی از تصورات نادرست آن‌ها از بی‌فایده بودن آن‌ها در وظایف نوشتاری زبان‌آموزان بود. 

منابع و مأخذ:

Allen, R. (1966). Written English is a 'second language'. Communication Studies, 18(2), 81-85.

Altenburg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word combinations. In A.P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp.101-122). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Barlow, M. (2000). Usage, blends and grammar. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage based models of language (pp. 315-346). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oskserjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 181-190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. 

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711– 733.

Chafe, W.& Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383-407.

Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.

Conklin, K, & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000074

Cowie, A.P. (1994). Phraseology. In Asher, R.E. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 3168–3171). Oxford: Pergamon.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ekiert, M., & Di Gennaro, K. (2021). Focused written corrective feedback and linguistic target mastery: Conceptual replication of Bitchener and Knoch (2010). Language Teaching, 54(1), 71–89.

Ferris, D. (2006). Feedback in second language writing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 49–62.

Gharanjik, N., & Ghoorchaei, B. (2020). The impact of metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners' acquisition of the hypothetical conditional. AJELP: Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 8(2), 27–38.

Gholami, L., Nabi Karimi, M., & Atai, M. (2017). Formulaic focus-on-form episodes in adult EFL communicative interactions. System, 4, 1-15.

Gibbs, R. W., & Gonzales, G. P. (1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition, 20(3), 243-259.

Hatami, S. (2015). Teaching formulaic sequences in the ESL classroom. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 112-129.

Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied linguistics, 19(1), 24-44.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.

Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 433-445.

Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students' writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539.

Kemper, E., Stringfield. S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research (pp. 273–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lee, I. (2008). Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written corrective feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22.

Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 85-102.

Liu, W., & Huo, Y. (2011). On the role of formulaic sequences in second language acquisition. US-China Foreign Language, 9(11), 31-36.

Lyons, John (1991). Natural Language and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 68–70. ISBN 978-0521246965.

Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111-129.

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Tesl-EJ, 6(2), 1-20.

Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connection: multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 40-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x

Nassaji, H. (2016). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. Bloomsbury.

Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (1997). Teaching vocabulary. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 238-254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nattinger, J. R., & De Carrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). New York, NY: Longman.

Rahimi, M. (2019). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners' writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 4, 12-22.

Rizkiani, S., Bhuana, G. P., & San Rizqiya, R. (2019). Coded and uncoded corrective feedback in teaching writing description texts. ELTIN Journal, Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, 8(1), 55–66.

Saadi, Z., & Saadat, M. (2015). EFL learners' writing accuracy: Effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2053–2063.

Santos, M., López Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131–154. 

Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 6, 1–23.

Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, C. N. (2010). An academic formulas list: new methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487-512.

Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Springer.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.006

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners' accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029

Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Siyanova - Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sanchez, A. (Eds.). (2019). Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective. Routledge.

Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Sidtis, D. V. L. (2019). What online processing tells us about formulaic language in Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sanchez, A. (Eds.), Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective (pp. 38-61). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory & Cognition, 37(4), 529-540.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, UK.

Wayne, E.A. (2013). Written corrective feedback: the parameters and the opinions.

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325-340.

Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 76-89.

 Wood, D. (2009a). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 39-57.

Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. London: Continuum.

Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13-33.

Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.

Yeldham, M. (2015). The influence of formulaic language on L2 listener decoding in extended discourse. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 91-102.

Zhao, S., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35(4), 431-447.